2016 Ohio 5867
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Lucas Fowler sold heroin to B.J. Quickle, who died of acute heroin intoxication; Fowler was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter (1st-degree felony) and fifth-degree felony drug trafficking and sentenced concurrently (10 years and 1 year).
- First trial (Sept. 2015) ended in mistrial after jury heard testimony about Fowler’s prior prison time; second trial proceeded in October 2015 after a venue motion was held in abeyance.
- After the State rested in the second trial, the court learned from the bailiff that Juror #6 reported overhearing an unidentified female juror say she had looked up a definition of involuntary manslaughter online and commented, “Oh, it’s a doozy.”
- The court admitted it had not given the standard admonition forbidding juror independent research at trial start and proposed to cure the matter with an instruction emphasizing that jurors must follow the court’s law.
- Defense requested a limited inquiry (voir dire) of the female jurors to determine scope and prejudice; the court declined, relying instead on curative instructions and concluding no further investigation was warranted.
- The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an immediate hearing/inquiry to determine whether juror misconduct occurred and whether it prejudiced Fowler’s substantial rights, and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly handled alleged juror misconduct (juror looked up legal definition) | Court’s curative instruction reminding jurors to follow the court’s law sufficed; no evidence of broader misconduct | Requested immediate inquiry of female jurors to determine scope, sharing, and prejudice; curative instruction alone insufficient | Trial court abused discretion by failing to investigate; reversal and remand required |
| Whether independent juror research mandates direct juror questioning | State argued limited report did not require probing investigation | Fowler argued Remmer/precedent require a hearing to assess bias and impact | Court: when possible juror misconduct is reported, the court must investigate; here it failed to do so |
| Whether curative instructions can cure independent investigation misconduct | State relied on instructions and voir dire protections as adequate safeguards | Fowler argued instructions alone cannot ensure impartial jury when juror did outside research and may have shared it | Held: curative instruction alone was insufficient without inquiry into actual prejudice |
| Standard and scope of review for judge’s handling of juror misconduct | State: trial judge has discretion and may limit inquiry if report is minimal | Defense: judge must conduct an inquiry with all parties permitted to participate to assess bias | Held: abuse-of-discretion standard applies; judge’s refusal to inquire was unreasonable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (trial court must hold a hearing when informed of outside communication to a juror)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (due process does not require new trial for every juror contact but mandates court hearing to determine effect)
- State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442 (Ohio 2012) (trial court must question juror to determine whether outside research biased juror before declaring mistrial)
- State v. Spencer, 118 Ohio App.3d 871 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court required to inquire of particular juror who conducted independent investigation to determine impartiality)